[1] Ralph Sherman Soles, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty on one charge of importing methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for that charge is life imprisonment.1

[2] The facts are briefly stated. On 28 December 2013 you were stopped at Auckland Airport and your luggage searched. One of the bags you were carrying was a suitcase that contained some worn garments and an old curtain. Nevertheless, it was a very heavy suitcase and further enquiries revealed that a false lining had been inserted which contained six kilograms of methamphetamine.

[3] Your explanation was that you had been offered a free trip to Africa on the promise of splitting some money with the unknown person who had contacted you by email. When you reached Johannesburg, rather than being asked to sign the necessary documents you had come to sign, you were instead asked to deliver a suitcase to Fiji. The suitcase was as I have described. The circumstances in which it was delivered to you and the nature of it made you immediately suspicious. You opened it to check what was inside. You say that your suspicions were allayed by the discovery of some clothing and what might have been a tapestry. You still wondered about the weight of the suitcase but say that you put it down to an unusual construction, a suitcase made of wood.

[4] The Crown case at trial was put on the basis that, having had your suspicions aroused you deliberately refrained from making enquiries that would satisfy those suspicions and were therefore wilfully blind as to the contents of the suitcase. That is plainly the basis for the guilty verdict and I proceed to sentence on that basis.

[5] The Court of Appeal has provided guidance for judges sentencing in drug importation cases in its decision of R v Fatu. In that case the Court of Appeal has indicated that the importation of 500 grams or more of methamphetamine should attract a starting point of 12 years with a range from that up to life imprisonment and that that range should apply to all, including drug mules which is what you are or
were. Six kilograms is a significant figure and if one viewed your offending as

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a).

simply as importation of six kilograms of methamphetamine by a drug mule the

starting point would be between 12 and 15 years’ imprisonment.2

[6] However, the cases involving similar quantities of methamphetamine brought into this country by mules have involved offenders with actual knowledge of what they were carrying.3 The Crown put its case against you on the basis of wilful blindness; that is to say, it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Soles

Details

AGLC: R v Soles [2014] NZHC 2665
Case: [2014] NZHC 2665
Decision Date: 29 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ralph Sherman Soles was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, following his conviction for importing six kilograms of methamphetamine. The defendant was found guilty of the charge, which carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The case involved the defendant being stopped at Auckland Airport, where a suitcase he was carrying was found to contain methamphetamine hidden in a false lining. The defendant claimed he was unaware of the contents of the suitcase, despite his suspicions, and was part of a Nigerian scam offering a free trip in exchange for splitting the money from the suitcase delivery.

The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the Court of Appeal's guidance in drug importation cases, particularly the starting point of 12 to 15 years for importing 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court also had to determine how to treat the defendant's wilful blindness as opposed to actual knowledge, with the Crown suggesting a starting point of 14 years and the defence proposing six to eight years. The court ultimately decided on a starting point of 10 years, considering the defendant's age, ill health, lack of previous convictions, and his status as a foreign national. The court reduced the sentence by 30% for the defendant's age and health, a further 5% for his good character, and another 5% for his status as a foreign national, resulting in a final sentence of six years' imprisonment.

The court reasoned that although the defendant's culpability was lower than that of typical drug mules, deterrence was still an important objective in sentencing for serious drug offences. However, the defendant's age, ill health, and lack of previous convictions warranted some leniency. The court also considered the defendant's status as a foreign national, noting that while deterrence was crucial, his circumstances were different from the typical drug mule. The court rejected the submission that the defendant's cooperation with authorities warranted a further reduction in sentence, finding that his cooperation was not genuine.

In conclusion, the court sentenced the defendant to six years' imprisonment, with no minimum period of imprisonment imposed. The court expected the defendant to be deported upon completion of his sentence, given the low risk of re-offending and the unusual circumstances of the case.

Orders